If you are wondering about how images look from the newly announced Canon 5DS and 5DS R DSLR cameras, below you will find the official image samples from Canon USA for both cameras. Let’s take a look at the 5DS images first (apologies for wrong orientation on vertical images – our system could not properly handle orientation on such large files):
And here are some sample images from the Canon 5DS R:
In short: detail level is incredible, reminding me of medium format look in terms of resolution and detail. Particularly impressive are images #1 and #4 from the Canon 5DS, along with all images from the Canon 5DS R. Looks like the modern Canon lenses are capable of resolving enough detail from the 5DS / 5DS R cameras. The only image that looks a bit blurry in the corners is image #2, which was shot with the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS at f/4. I bet stopping down the lens to f/5.6 and smaller would have produced a much sharper image.
Well, I officially want one.
Canon-5DS-R-Image-Samples-2 : image looks like it taking from a travel camera (power zoom or something small)….not what i expected to see…
Ha ha, you’re a comedian, surely.
I followed the progress of these two cameras at Canonrumors, and all the time suffered from intolerable bouts of GAS. In other words I planned my finances ahead of time to be able to buy one. But thinking about it, and considering the fact that it’s still only a 35mm sensor, coupled with the fact that – apparently – there is no DR improvement over the Mark III, there’s no reason for me to invest in one of these.
Still, these images are absolutely fantastic. The detail is staggeringly good. At the end of the day though, approaching medium format quality in 35mm isn’t medium format quality. Not that there’s anything to quibble about with these cameras. Canon has become the market leader in innovation.
I have been awaiting this announcement from Canon for a while now and I am a little disappointed in a couple of areas with what has been said about the new canon 5DS. I shoot mainly landscape but usually in late evening early morning low light and the most important factors to me are higher dynamic range and less noise in the shadows when processing. I shoot at base iso most of the time. Surely this is just as important as extra megapixels. The new cameras are said to have no DR improvement over my 5D mkiii and noise performance like the 7D ii. Not much more for me for $4000 outlay and still worse in these areas than the Nikon D800, Sony AR etc. Am I being unreasonable in my expectations? High iso is not an issue with me for landscapes unless I do astro.
Call me crazy, but I was more interested in the new mirror mechanism. It is not crazy to expect it in the future Mark IV, in which case does that mean an even quieter/less impactful shutter?
Yes! The biggest change in quality from the D800>D810 in my book was the new shutter mechanism. I am most interested in the Canon one in these cameras.
great quality, im holding moneny for this camera
Come on, 50MP is actually quite a bit of jump from 36MP (40% more pixels), which is almost comparable to jump from 24MP to 36Mp (50% more pixels). And I have never seen anyone claiming D800/D810 is ‘the same’ as D600/D610/D750.
And handling and storing 50MP file will only put 40% more overhead for your machine, Peoples are now shooting VIDEO in 4K resolution (8MP) in RAW nowadays….
Personally I prefer low-resolution (~16MP) sensor with high DR and low noise – unfortunately such a sensor does not exist and some people will prefer high resolution sensor from whichever brand they use.
Personally I prefer low-resolution (~16MP) sensor with high DR and low noise – unfortunately such a sensor does not exist
Try D4s :)
Unfortunately D4S is way too expensive, try Nikon Df :)
See comment with formula [ MPmax = 5500 / Fnumber² ], above.
First I’ve got jealous, then I read that the Dyanmic Range of this camera is the same weak one of the 5dIII, wich is weaker than the D3300. Same for the low light, it seems that it will have the same low light performance as the 7D.
So, it’s one more “crappish” sensor of canon but with a large MP. I have problems getting tack sharp with 36mp of the D810, this camera will be a nightmare for handheld shooting with lenses without IS.
PS: when I say crappy sensor I mean comparing it to Sony/Nikon sensors.
after a few minutes examining the files i was thinking exactly the same :
Sony now makes the sensor for Canon.
Zooming in to 100% and being able to see the hairs on her nose in the first picture or the texture of the skin on the hippo is pretty crazy. I was less impressed with the sharpness of the cityscapes (both of them), I don’t think the lenses were keeping up there.
All in all I think this is a super specialised camera. 95-99% of people are better off with a 5D MKIII. When lenses get to be a lot sharper then cropping options will be great with this much resolution.
Still, considering that the D750 is essentially underspecced compared to the 5DMKIII (okay, price difference, yeah) and the D810 is lower in resolution than these new ones, Canon has put itself in a good marketing position.
I can see why Canon and Nikon would want to up their MP’s, sadly it works. Most people here would never know if I took those images with a 6 years old Nikon D90. I am more impressed with the make-up work and hair do of the model than the image itself.
I think you’ve mistaken this site with DPReview, most people here would most definitely notice the difference. I’m not much of a high-MP advocate as it carries with it its own issues but your statement is simply incorrect.
I respect your opinion however, excellent details can be easily achieved by a 12mp DX camera. My point is that Canon “dressed up” their images with silly make-up and hair do and everyone goes “wow”. Of course they cannot be expected to be objective but I would appreciate if they did not treat people as idiots.
Download the day time image of the city and take a look. It is a 28″ by 19″ at 300 DPI. Open it in Photoshop and magnify to 200% and you will see how fast details disappear. At this resolution they should be better.
I am sure it is a great camera but we have to be a bit more cool headed.
“Open it in Photoshop and magnify to 200% and you will see how fast details disappear” why would I do that? I normally view images full-screen or print them at anything up to 40″ long-edge and stand back a bit to view the entire composition. I’m not interested in viewing ‘parts’ of an image. If I can’t view an image in its entirety (i.e. fitting within my natural field of view) then I’m just pixel-peeping and that’s not an aspect of photography I’m interested in. That’s not to say other’s won’t be but that’s just my personal preference which does not retract from my original opinion, I think most people on this site will tell the difference between the two cameras you mentioned just as easily as they will be capable of understanding that the loss of detail at that pixel-level is most than likely limited by other factors including and most probably by the detail resolving power of the lens rather than the sensor (or pixel).
Your points are valid, however, isn’t that the idea of high MP cameras? incredible details? How many here mentioned the “great details” of the images?
No one sane would scrutinize an image at 200%. You like it, you print it, or whatever you do with it. However, here scrutinizing is very valid! That is, after all, what people should do before dishing out thousands of dollars.
As I said, your perceived loss of detail here is most probably due to a number of factors other than the sensor. Things like lens sharpness, contrast, ability to resolve, jpeg engine settings and compression etc all likely to have more of an impact in what you are describing than the sensor itself.
I don’t disagree with you that the main purpose of more pixels is to resolve more detail but not for the sake of looking at an image at 200% but more practical uses like extreme cropping or extra-large printing etc. but honestly, if you can’t see the extra detail in these images compared to a current Canon FX sensor I’d suggest your monitor is to blame.
My monitor is fine (better than fine actually). I have images taken by D810 and the details are amazing. Even at 300%. Lost of resolution and details can come from many factors of course. But as it is, I am not impressed. I will wait until RAW images are shared
I was tempted to suggest you probably shot Nikon at the beginning of this thread but managed to restrain myself ;)